All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

I found it rather offensive. I also loved how he defined a "just war" as one where you "really believe" the made-up facts against Iraq (and then goes on a rant about violating sanctions, yet these were UN sanctions and the UN did not authorise this war). Presumably made up facts about Iran will also be justification for an invasion.

Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense now - GWB really believed all those "facts", so it MUST be Just.

I also loved how he defined a "just war" as one where you "really believe" the made-up facts against Iraq

You love how I did something that I didn't do?

Try listening again. What I said was that you can define it either way. If going into Iraq is to stop Hussein from doing something terrible, that is Just, according to the Just War Theory. This is a given. And I said the war is NOT a Just War if you think the motives were otherwise, such as for oil.

Try listening again. What I said was that you can define it either way. If going into Iraq is to stop Hussein from doing something terrible, that is Just, according to the Just War Theory. This is a given. And I said the war is NOT a Just War if you think the motives were otherwise, such as for oil.

You're very careful to not say whether or not you think it is or isn't a Just war. If you believe that it wasn't Just based on your reasoning then please feel free to respond to this comment indicating so. Otherwise your lack of criticism of your administration (of whom you're a very public and vocal supporter of, yet critical on other matters) enforces my view that you believe this is a Just War. I can't really comment on your other points until you clear that up.

You can't even comment on your misrepresentation about what I actually said? Oh, come on...

I don't believe I did that, so what can I say? I'm sorry you think so, but that's one of those back-handed apologies that isn't worth much. Regarding your lack of criticism of the Bush administration - perhaps I've been reading the wrong blog and if so I can apologise for my lack of knowledge on that. Certainly I can't recall any such criticisms on use.perl though maybe my memory is faulty.

So you still think I defined a "just war" as one where you "really believe" the made-up facts against Iraq. Except, I didn't. I said that that reasoning could be one justification for saying the war was Just. But I added quickly that there was no obligation to believe those things, and that if you didn't, well, then probably, to you it wasn't Just. I did not define what a Just War was, I simply gave one way in which you could reasonably call the war Just, an

... To that I merely say, I think the costs are too high to take that chance. Maybe I'm wrong. I dunno.The other common criticism of my view is that it didn't work: it just made things worse. To that I say two things: a. we do not know things are actually worse, especially for the long run; b. just because I favored going in doesn't mean I favor how the whole enterprise has been handled.

Right now the only thing we do know is that a) things are actually worse and b) the costs have been enormous.

Right now the only thing we do know is that a) things are actually worse and b) the costs have been enormous.

We do know b. As to a.... worse than what? Worse than they would have been otherwise? We do not know that. It's perfectly reasonable to suppose, for example, that terrorism would be even worse had we not gone in.

For example, after the USS Cole attack, when the U.S. did not respond, that actually encouraged terrorists; if we backed down to Hussein, would that have encouraged terrorists too? Obvi

I do not think it is reasonable to suppose that terrorism would be worse had the US not gone into Iraq. There is no connection there.

I'm sorry, that's just wrong. We know the terrorists were watching our reaction to Iraq, whether we would stand up, or back down, to the implicit threat of Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UN resolutions. We know that when we back down -- whether politically or militarily -- that it emboldens the terrorists.

The UN inspection process was continuing and working.... So the inspection process was *clearly* working as otherwise the US troops would have found WMDs in places Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to look.

You define "working" as "Iraq was prevented from developing or continuing to possess WMD." (And take "no WMD could be found even by those who had a very vested interest in finding them -- the US military" as proof that Iraq was indeed prevented.)

I define "working" as "Saddam Hussein complied with

--J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

You define "working" as "Iraq was prevented from developing or continuing to possess WMD." (And take "no WMD could be found even by those who had a very vested interest in finding them -- the US military" as proof that Iraq was indeed prevented.)

Was more required to make the world safe? And fwiw it wasn't just WMDs, he also dismantled his medium range missiles.

I define "working" as "Saddam Hussein complied with all terms." He didn't, so I say it didn't work.

There's a very thin shade of difference in definitions here, so parse this answer closely: no, more was not required to make the world safe, but more was required in order to determine that the world was, in fact, safe.

You forgot to say "within the timelines specified". He was complying with the terms on a slightly slower timeline, yet while progress was being made the US decided an attack was the better option.

I may be misremembering, or I may have even sw

--J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

I may be misremembering, or I may have even swallowed some propaganda from a vast right wing conspiracy war machine or something, but my memory tells me that Hussein had made clear his contempt for the process and his intent to comply only as much as necessary to placate people, not to actually comply with the terms.

Perhaps you swallowed the propaganda. More likely is that US reporting on world affairs is notoriously shoddy. Here's an abridged timeline for you:

Okay, here's what I thought happened: it was insisted to Iraq (by the UN, the US, and/or the inspectors) that immediate access be granted to certain sites. Iraq said, "No, wait, hang on a minute, uh, we don't want to do that right now." It was a situation that, if I remembered, could have been completely cleared up if Iraq had just said, "Come on in. Today." And they didn't.

And I see things in there like, "harassment of weapons inspectors," and I have to ask, "Isn't it clear that this is not cooperati

--J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

I agree, they were not fully cooperating, however the inspectors were (I imagine) dealing with some very deep seated hatred against the inspections from those who ran the sites Blix was trying to gain access to, so I'm sure he didn't expect it be a completely open door policy.Regardless, the inspections and disarmament were moving forwards, even if not entirely within the bounds of the UN resolution (though it should be noted the UN wished to amend the resolution with new deadlines, but it was made clear to

Remember Hans Blix saying the threat of US force in early 2003 helped force Iraq's hand? How much would Iraq have complied in the intervening 12 years if the UN had lived up to ITS threats against Iraq?

This I agree with entirely, and said so in a previous reply to you. The UN was weak, but I still think that the world was safe enough from Saddam's harm because of the process (and the threat of war) that war wasn't necessary in the end. That's the point we'll have to agree to disagree on.

I still think that the world was safe enough from Saddam's harm because of the process (and the threat of war) that war wasn't necessary in the end.

Fine, but what you're missing is that the process *was explicitly stated* to work so that without *full and immediate cooperation,* we would not be able to *know* that the world (or region) was safe from Hussein. You might think we were safe enough, but the process had already irrevocably failed to prove that. There was no way to trust the outcome of the proce

Fine, but what you're missing is that the process *was explicitly stated* to work so that without *full and immediate cooperation,* we would not be able to *know* that the world (or region) was safe from Hussein. You might think we were safe enough, but the process had already irrevocably failed to prove that. There was no way to trust the outcome of the process once Hussein failed to live up to its requirements.

I mostly agree with you, but I still don't think war was the right action as a result. There wer

There are definitely too many issues with the concept of "terrorist attacks". For example does the recent alleged plan to attack airplanes in the UK constitute an attack?The problem with the cost aspect is it has the potential to throw the entire world into another depression, because the US is relying solely on debt to fund this war, and debt can only go so far - what is the plan to repay that debt? I don't believe there is one.

So despite Australia getting off lightly on the current cost of the war, there